Somebody needs to tell the BMV that. I know, I know, health insurance is different than auto insurance. People can just choose not to drive, then they won't need to buy auto insurance. As you might imagine, I don't quite see it like that.
Let's start with the whole "you don't HAVE to drive" reasoning. This is simply not true for most Americans. Here in Ohio, Gov-elect Kasich is turning down $400 million of federal money to make sure it stays not true. The money was marked for a high speed rail system connecting Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati. OK, that may not have been the public transportation silver bullet that made it possible for everyone in Ohio to get rid of their rides, but it was at least a step in the right direction. It might even have created a local job or two. Ohio isn't the only place where most of us don't have access to public transportation. Those of us who don't have access also probably don't have that one big employer right down the street allowing us to walk to work either. Therefore, if we want to work, we HAVE to drive. If we want groceries, prescriptions, food, then we have to drive AND work. These things aren't optional. Humans need them to survive. And for most humans, we have to drive to get them. So most of us do NOT have the option to simply not drive in order to avoid mandatory auto insurance.
But let's just pretend for a minute that driving really is optional... something people do just for recreation, or because they didn't achieve what they thought they should and bought a really expensive, impractical car instead. If that were actually the case, then wouldn't it make even more sense to make auto insurance OPTIONAL but health insurance MANDATORY. If driving were really just for kicks, then it would be LESS important than healthcare, right? So why would we make the important insurance optional, but the recreational insurance mandatory? That just seems kind of backward.
No, I get this - it was explained to me before. Since driving is optional, it's OK to mandate that those who choose to do it have insurance so if they hit YOU, you don't have to pay for the damage they caused... and if people don't like it, they don't have to drive. If I choose to drive, I shouldn't have to worry about some bonehead without insurance hitting me. In essence, this law keeps the cost of YOUR insurance lower. OK, that makes sense. Hey, wouldn't that work for other types of insurance too?! Like, what if I also want that kind of assurance that my insurance for other things wouldn't get prohibitively expensive due to all the people out there who choose not to buy it, but sill participate in the activity? Don't I deserve the same protection there as I do when I pay for auto insurance?
OK, where was I? Oh yeah, so mandatory insurance keeps the costs down for all of us who choose to partake of that particular system. And ya see, right now, without any kind of law like that regarding health insurance, people who choose not to buy insurance, also choose not to get healthcare. It's kind of like a rationing system we have in place right now. Health care is rationed to people with money. People without have to wait until their health is in an emergency condition, go to an emergency room, and then the rest of us pay for that via increased health insurance premiums. The average cost per visit for the people for whom health care is rationed in this fashion is sky high because they've received very little if any maintenance or preventive care (that's the part that's rationed) and so we all pay too much for the care they get... if it's not too late. Let's sum up: our current system rations care, is paid for socially by those of us who buy insurance, and is costly because of this. If only there were a way to take advantage of the way we made auto insurance cheaper by making it mandatory! Hmmm. How might we do that?
While you ponder that, I'll go on. A third reason why I believe the "unconstitutional" argument is flawed is because just like folks who choose not to drive, folks may also choose not to get healthcare. Seriously. Who ever died because of a missed healthcare appointment? I think it was Mark Twain who said doctors make people sick. There are even plenty of Americans whose religious beliefs prohibit them from going to the doctor. So there are folks out there right now who shoot down the whole "driving is optional, healthcare is not" line of thought. We'd need an opt out for these folks anyway, so what's so unconstitutional about it if we can make exceptions for folks like that? Furthermore, why couldn't folks who want to opt out of the mandatory health insurance just pay cash for their care and be required to maintain a $100,000 bond in the event they require emergency healthcare? Ohio does that for drivers. They can drive AND opt out of the mandatory insurance as long as they have the cash to pay for damage they cause.
Fourth, based on their recent reluctance to shoot down federal law, even THIS Supreme Court isn't very likely to side with the complainants. They've failed to limit federal reach into homegrown medicinal marijuana, so why wouldn't they fail to limit it here too? Yup, I'm afraid this whole lawsuit against the constitutionality of mandatory health insurance is just a political event purely to get attention and steer the ignorant toward some hasty illogical conclusion. I for one, am disappointed with my countrymen.
Luth
Out
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't be a bigot!
Senator McCain is out of excuses. The same ambivalence that cost him a presidential campaign now threatens to destroy what little respect anyone still has for him. He said he'd support the repeal when the generals supported it. Now he's changed his mind. He's one of many who don't seem to have learned from history and can't approach the issue of don't ask, don't tell from any kind of rational perspective.
It comes down to this: you're not in the military to pick up a date, so who or how you date shouldn't matter. Any personal issues you have with gays in the military are your issues, not the military's, and since it's an all volunteer force, you have the option of not joining rather than asking the military to discriminate against people you don't like.
It's that simple.
Just as simple is the word for military chaplains (or others) who oppose the repeal of this discriminatory policy: BIGOTS. Citing one's religious beliefs is no excuse. There was a time when the military only enlisted white males. There was a time when units and occupations were segregated. This too was bigoted policy, and this too was supported by the bible's take on slavery. We now admit how wrong that was. We need to do the same with don't ask, don't tell.
Bigots are not good for morale. They detract from the mission far more than anyone else. If our military is going to discriminate against anyone, it should discriminate against bigots.
Luth
Out
It comes down to this: you're not in the military to pick up a date, so who or how you date shouldn't matter. Any personal issues you have with gays in the military are your issues, not the military's, and since it's an all volunteer force, you have the option of not joining rather than asking the military to discriminate against people you don't like.
It's that simple.
Just as simple is the word for military chaplains (or others) who oppose the repeal of this discriminatory policy: BIGOTS. Citing one's religious beliefs is no excuse. There was a time when the military only enlisted white males. There was a time when units and occupations were segregated. This too was bigoted policy, and this too was supported by the bible's take on slavery. We now admit how wrong that was. We need to do the same with don't ask, don't tell.
Bigots are not good for morale. They detract from the mission far more than anyone else. If our military is going to discriminate against anyone, it should discriminate against bigots.
Luth
Out
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Secrets Gold Dealers Don't Want YOU To Know!
1. Buy low, sell high (duh)
2. Gold is HIGHER right now than it's been in my lifetime
3. So do NOT buy gold right now
Which, of course, means Glenn Beck truly is full of shit! But how many people are going out and actually BUYING gold right now? I know... I know... I might as well ask how many people are idiots. Anyhoo, an ad in the back of the VFW magazine caught my eye with a title similar to the one of this post and I just had to get this off my chest. You'd think an organization like VFW would be a little more careful about taking money from advertisers trying to swindle money from their clientele. But WTF do I know? I'm foolish enough to believe people will actually apply logic to things like this.
Luth
Out
2. Gold is HIGHER right now than it's been in my lifetime
3. So do NOT buy gold right now
Which, of course, means Glenn Beck truly is full of shit! But how many people are going out and actually BUYING gold right now? I know... I know... I might as well ask how many people are idiots. Anyhoo, an ad in the back of the VFW magazine caught my eye with a title similar to the one of this post and I just had to get this off my chest. You'd think an organization like VFW would be a little more careful about taking money from advertisers trying to swindle money from their clientele. But WTF do I know? I'm foolish enough to believe people will actually apply logic to things like this.
Luth
Out
Monday, October 25, 2010
but still... ya gotta vote!
Lest the subtitle of this 'blog fool you into thinking otherwise, you HAVE to vote. It is not just a right of citizenship, it is your duty.
Ya wanna know reason numero uno why politicians don't respond to their constituents these days? Cuz they don't have to! Only 40% of us bother voting for them, so what do they have to lose?
Next Tuesday, get off your asses and vote. I don't care if you vote like I do or not, just do it. Until we consistently show up in FAR greater numbers than we have in my lifetime, we'll never have any control over what these bastards are up to. Until we give them reason to fear us, they'll just continue with their own agendas.
And if you don't vote, don't bitch - just shut the hell up and deal with the results, cuz what we have these days is because of lazy hypocrites just like you! I'll actually be out of town next Tuesday, so Mrs. HorsePoup and I got up early on a Saturday and drove all the way to the board of elections in our county to make our voices heard. There were no lines. There was no waiting. Grandma HorsePoup got a ballot mailed to her and voted in the comfort of her home, where she had plenty of time, and a newspaper to consult if she wanted.
We can't make it any easier and there are no excuses. Even if you believe Obama should've been able to reverse two terms of horribly reckless fiscal policy in his first two years, even if you believe the party of NO hasn't blocked progress enough already, even if you're dumb enough to believe Gov. Strickland caused, rather than inherited a tanked economy and the highest unemployment since the Reagan era, I still want you to vote.
As Americans, we've been voting uninformed for years. That doesn't frighten at all compared to how scary our unaccountable politicians might become if our voter turn out drops even lower. Think they don't listen now? Then go ahead and surf the couch next Tuesday instead of stopping by the polls after "job hunting." If our turn out gets any lower, the current class will likely vote themselves 100% raises and extend their terms indefinitely cuz they know only 25% of us even give a shit.
I know it's only a mid-term election... no president to vote for or anything exciting like that, but next Tuesday is the day. Get off your butt and vote.
Luth
Out
Ya wanna know reason numero uno why politicians don't respond to their constituents these days? Cuz they don't have to! Only 40% of us bother voting for them, so what do they have to lose?
Next Tuesday, get off your asses and vote. I don't care if you vote like I do or not, just do it. Until we consistently show up in FAR greater numbers than we have in my lifetime, we'll never have any control over what these bastards are up to. Until we give them reason to fear us, they'll just continue with their own agendas.
And if you don't vote, don't bitch - just shut the hell up and deal with the results, cuz what we have these days is because of lazy hypocrites just like you! I'll actually be out of town next Tuesday, so Mrs. HorsePoup and I got up early on a Saturday and drove all the way to the board of elections in our county to make our voices heard. There were no lines. There was no waiting. Grandma HorsePoup got a ballot mailed to her and voted in the comfort of her home, where she had plenty of time, and a newspaper to consult if she wanted.
We can't make it any easier and there are no excuses. Even if you believe Obama should've been able to reverse two terms of horribly reckless fiscal policy in his first two years, even if you believe the party of NO hasn't blocked progress enough already, even if you're dumb enough to believe Gov. Strickland caused, rather than inherited a tanked economy and the highest unemployment since the Reagan era, I still want you to vote.
As Americans, we've been voting uninformed for years. That doesn't frighten at all compared to how scary our unaccountable politicians might become if our voter turn out drops even lower. Think they don't listen now? Then go ahead and surf the couch next Tuesday instead of stopping by the polls after "job hunting." If our turn out gets any lower, the current class will likely vote themselves 100% raises and extend their terms indefinitely cuz they know only 25% of us even give a shit.
I know it's only a mid-term election... no president to vote for or anything exciting like that, but next Tuesday is the day. Get off your butt and vote.
Luth
Out
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Money Equals Speech...
...but not for "games of skill" prizes in Ohio. So, my lawyer friends, explain this to me. When it comes to campaign contributions, the U.S. Supreme Court says money does in fact equal speech, and as such can't be limited without violating the constitution. However, the Ohio Supreme Court says when it comes to prizes awarded for a single "game of skill," this particular form of speech must be limited to $10.
Far be it from me to argue in favor of anything that might make gambling more enticing, but what's the difference? Why can't the owners of these increasingly ubiquitous storefront gambling operations exercise their "speech" the same way anonymous corporate donors get to exercise theirs during campaign time? I read somewhere that anonymous donors from all over the world are spending record amounts to influence Ohio's elections. (Repubs outspending Dems 7-1, for whatever that's worth) So why can't Ohio business owners spend more than $10 on a prize? Wouldn't this prize be a form of congratulations i.e. speech? And where are all the free-market, smaller-government, pro-business supporters to support these businessmen/women? What's wrong, exactly, with offering a bigger prize... especially if that prize (cash) has already been defined as speech by the U.S. Supreme Court?
Speaking of pro-business people and questions I'm having trouble answering as the elections approach, what is it Jim Renacci wants to provide for my congressional district? I mean, I've seen all the campaign talk - a flyer promising he'll protect my gun rights, commercials promising he'll support Ohio businesses, but what is it he's actually going to do. We all know that outside the context of a campaign, campaign speeches, commericals, flyers don't really mean much. If we go by past behavior, all I can figure is that when he says he supports businesses, what he really means is he ignores his constituents. The two things that stand out in my mind are two heated eminent domain decisions made in Wadsworth during, or shortly after his term as mayor there, and a vote by the city's electric linemen to unionize during his term.
I can see how the eminent domain decisions allowing Wal-Mart and CVS to evict property owners could be viewed as pro-business, or at last pro Wal-Mart and pro CVS, but what of the thousands of residents who voiced clear and strong opinions that the property owners evicted were more important to Wadsworth than a new Wal-Mart or a newly relocated CVS? If Renacci believes government should leave business alone, then why was he, as mayor, so involved in these businesses getting their way in Wadsworth?
As for the unionized electric linemen, they'd voted against unionizing for years until the mayor's business-ization of the city left them with no say in their operation - they who climb poles in storms to restore half-price power to city residents in less time than it takes for an Ohio Edison customer to even report an outage-drove them to finally give in to their union's bargaining power. I believe they're the first department in the city's history to unionize, and it wasn't a decision they came to easily.
Then there's that empty stretch of road that used to be Wadsworth's own little "auto mile," and which once included Renacci-Doraty Chevrolet - the dealership he bought from convicted money-launderer, Mickey Miller. Renacci claims he put up the good fight with GM to keep it open, and then he blamed Obama for closing it. I'm going out on a limb here to guess that the employees of that dealership lost a lot more in that deal than Renacci did.
Based on what I'm able to put together from all of this, what I guess Renacci means when he says he supports business is he supports that which makes him richer. And that's cool. We're capitalists after all, but I know plenty of pro-business people who have managed to survive these tough economic times without padding their own pockets at the expense of or with absolutely no regard for their employees. Renacci says he wants to bring jobs back to Ohio, but from what I can see, his only interest in creating jobs is creating wealth for himself...with absolutely no regard for, and quite possibly at the expense of, those who actually do the work of those jobs. Seems to be a theme.
The bigger theme that he and his ilk are foisting on us during this campaign is this myth that government would be better run like a business... by businessmen. I'm all for more responsible fiscal policy - seriously, it's the one area where I might even lean a little to the right, but there's simply no truth to the notion that government, which is clearly different than business- should be run more like a business. If Ohio's history doesn't demonstrate that, then perhaps our nation's pro-business handling of the banking industry should. (One might also compare Wadsworth's Electric and Communications services and prices to Ohio Edison and Time Warner's for another example.) Government has regulatory responsibility. Businesses don't. Ohio's government has responsibility for funding education, Ohio businesses don't. The so-called businessmen who ran Ohio for the past 30 years mismanaged education funds (and the general fund too for that matter) even while everyone else got rich. And the first governor to pay any more than lip service to righting three decades of wrongs came into office during the worst economy (note - "came into office during," NOT "created") since the Great Depression. We owe it to him to see past the "get rid of all the incumbents" BS and see what he can pull off as we continue to climb out of the economy our current leaders inherited from their "pro-business" predecessors.
Speaking of education funding. If there's one area where we can tackle jobs, the economy, and slipping test scores all in one swoop, it's getting behind our public schools. No business yet has come up with a solution to educate every Ohio student the way Ohio's public schools have. Anecdotal evidence from a handful of private or religious schools whose roles are filled with the top students prove only that good students beget good schools. Public schools don't have the luxury of kicking out less than profitable students, low performers, or kids whose parents aren't even remotely involved. Ohio's schools, like all schools have some issues, but there's simply no better alternative for most Ohio students. A for-profit education system will never be able to serve the range and number of students like our public system has. It needs help and Gov. Strickland is the first governor in over thirty years who has focused on it outside of a campaign speech. Hmm, sounds like another example of how government's responsibilities are different from, and thus require different leadership, than business.
One look at Ohio communities whose public systems are sound (and look quickly cuz even they won't last the way things are looking) tells you that jobs and good schools go together. Pick a place you'd want to live and it'll have a good school system. Parents choose to move there. Employers locate there knowing they'll have a solid workforce and a supportive, involved community - people who can afford to buy shit. The way our past "education governors" have rewarded this effort is by siphoning state education funds into the general fund to balance their budgets leaving the burden on those communities to support their school system. This violates Ohio's constitution and leaves those successful communities indirectly subsidizing communities who've given up on their school system. Talk about socialism! That's exactly what Ohio's past governors have chosen as their preferred method for school funding. It's not what our founders had in mind. It's also what critics of Strickland have accused HIM of doing... but he's the first guy who's tried to UNdo it!!
So it's time to look a little closer at the whole business argument. I'm all for good businessmen (and women) running Ohio's government, but good businessmen have integrity after the campaign ends. They consider more than just what they can take from the backs of their employees. I'm reminded of an old saying, "those who can run a business run a business, and those who can't run for office." How about we leave business to businessmen, and leave public office for those who actually want to serve the public, which, when you think about it, should include the public involved in business as well. Anyone who feels the need to separate those two, and especially those who stake their claim solely on such a separation, don't seem to have much to offer the general public.
Luth
Out
Far be it from me to argue in favor of anything that might make gambling more enticing, but what's the difference? Why can't the owners of these increasingly ubiquitous storefront gambling operations exercise their "speech" the same way anonymous corporate donors get to exercise theirs during campaign time? I read somewhere that anonymous donors from all over the world are spending record amounts to influence Ohio's elections. (Repubs outspending Dems 7-1, for whatever that's worth) So why can't Ohio business owners spend more than $10 on a prize? Wouldn't this prize be a form of congratulations i.e. speech? And where are all the free-market, smaller-government, pro-business supporters to support these businessmen/women? What's wrong, exactly, with offering a bigger prize... especially if that prize (cash) has already been defined as speech by the U.S. Supreme Court?
Speaking of pro-business people and questions I'm having trouble answering as the elections approach, what is it Jim Renacci wants to provide for my congressional district? I mean, I've seen all the campaign talk - a flyer promising he'll protect my gun rights, commercials promising he'll support Ohio businesses, but what is it he's actually going to do. We all know that outside the context of a campaign, campaign speeches, commericals, flyers don't really mean much. If we go by past behavior, all I can figure is that when he says he supports businesses, what he really means is he ignores his constituents. The two things that stand out in my mind are two heated eminent domain decisions made in Wadsworth during, or shortly after his term as mayor there, and a vote by the city's electric linemen to unionize during his term.
I can see how the eminent domain decisions allowing Wal-Mart and CVS to evict property owners could be viewed as pro-business, or at last pro Wal-Mart and pro CVS, but what of the thousands of residents who voiced clear and strong opinions that the property owners evicted were more important to Wadsworth than a new Wal-Mart or a newly relocated CVS? If Renacci believes government should leave business alone, then why was he, as mayor, so involved in these businesses getting their way in Wadsworth?
As for the unionized electric linemen, they'd voted against unionizing for years until the mayor's business-ization of the city left them with no say in their operation - they who climb poles in storms to restore half-price power to city residents in less time than it takes for an Ohio Edison customer to even report an outage-drove them to finally give in to their union's bargaining power. I believe they're the first department in the city's history to unionize, and it wasn't a decision they came to easily.
Then there's that empty stretch of road that used to be Wadsworth's own little "auto mile," and which once included Renacci-Doraty Chevrolet - the dealership he bought from convicted money-launderer, Mickey Miller. Renacci claims he put up the good fight with GM to keep it open, and then he blamed Obama for closing it. I'm going out on a limb here to guess that the employees of that dealership lost a lot more in that deal than Renacci did.
Based on what I'm able to put together from all of this, what I guess Renacci means when he says he supports business is he supports that which makes him richer. And that's cool. We're capitalists after all, but I know plenty of pro-business people who have managed to survive these tough economic times without padding their own pockets at the expense of or with absolutely no regard for their employees. Renacci says he wants to bring jobs back to Ohio, but from what I can see, his only interest in creating jobs is creating wealth for himself...with absolutely no regard for, and quite possibly at the expense of, those who actually do the work of those jobs. Seems to be a theme.
The bigger theme that he and his ilk are foisting on us during this campaign is this myth that government would be better run like a business... by businessmen. I'm all for more responsible fiscal policy - seriously, it's the one area where I might even lean a little to the right, but there's simply no truth to the notion that government, which is clearly different than business- should be run more like a business. If Ohio's history doesn't demonstrate that, then perhaps our nation's pro-business handling of the banking industry should. (One might also compare Wadsworth's Electric and Communications services and prices to Ohio Edison and Time Warner's for another example.) Government has regulatory responsibility. Businesses don't. Ohio's government has responsibility for funding education, Ohio businesses don't. The so-called businessmen who ran Ohio for the past 30 years mismanaged education funds (and the general fund too for that matter) even while everyone else got rich. And the first governor to pay any more than lip service to righting three decades of wrongs came into office during the worst economy (note - "came into office during," NOT "created") since the Great Depression. We owe it to him to see past the "get rid of all the incumbents" BS and see what he can pull off as we continue to climb out of the economy our current leaders inherited from their "pro-business" predecessors.
Speaking of education funding. If there's one area where we can tackle jobs, the economy, and slipping test scores all in one swoop, it's getting behind our public schools. No business yet has come up with a solution to educate every Ohio student the way Ohio's public schools have. Anecdotal evidence from a handful of private or religious schools whose roles are filled with the top students prove only that good students beget good schools. Public schools don't have the luxury of kicking out less than profitable students, low performers, or kids whose parents aren't even remotely involved. Ohio's schools, like all schools have some issues, but there's simply no better alternative for most Ohio students. A for-profit education system will never be able to serve the range and number of students like our public system has. It needs help and Gov. Strickland is the first governor in over thirty years who has focused on it outside of a campaign speech. Hmm, sounds like another example of how government's responsibilities are different from, and thus require different leadership, than business.
One look at Ohio communities whose public systems are sound (and look quickly cuz even they won't last the way things are looking) tells you that jobs and good schools go together. Pick a place you'd want to live and it'll have a good school system. Parents choose to move there. Employers locate there knowing they'll have a solid workforce and a supportive, involved community - people who can afford to buy shit. The way our past "education governors" have rewarded this effort is by siphoning state education funds into the general fund to balance their budgets leaving the burden on those communities to support their school system. This violates Ohio's constitution and leaves those successful communities indirectly subsidizing communities who've given up on their school system. Talk about socialism! That's exactly what Ohio's past governors have chosen as their preferred method for school funding. It's not what our founders had in mind. It's also what critics of Strickland have accused HIM of doing... but he's the first guy who's tried to UNdo it!!
So it's time to look a little closer at the whole business argument. I'm all for good businessmen (and women) running Ohio's government, but good businessmen have integrity after the campaign ends. They consider more than just what they can take from the backs of their employees. I'm reminded of an old saying, "those who can run a business run a business, and those who can't run for office." How about we leave business to businessmen, and leave public office for those who actually want to serve the public, which, when you think about it, should include the public involved in business as well. Anyone who feels the need to separate those two, and especially those who stake their claim solely on such a separation, don't seem to have much to offer the general public.
Luth
Out
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Think twice - it might make it even funnier!
By now most of you have seen this brilliant letter in response to a much less recent and less famous alleged Dr. Laura rant:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding
God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share
that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to
defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that
Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination ... End of
debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some
other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves,
both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring
nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not
Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as
sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would
be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman
while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24.
The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take
offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I
know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is
my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I
smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the
Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I
morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do
it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating
shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than
homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees'
of abomination?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar
of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear
reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some
wiggle-room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed,
including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly
forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a
dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear
gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by
planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by
wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester
blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really
necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town
together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to
death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with
their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and
thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you
can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is
eternal and unchanging.
Your adoring fan,
James M. Kauffman, Ed.D. Professor Emeritus, Dept. Of
Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education University of Virginia
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My former boss sent it to me 'cuz she knew I'd think it was funny even if neither of us cared about its authenticity and didn't plan to pass it on to anyone else. She was right. I got a good laugh out of it and didn't even consider checking it out further.
A lot of times, when I get something like this emailed to me, it's not funny, and it's been forwarded by about a zillion people. I usually run it through Snopes.com before I make anything more out of it, but in this case, since the citation info is right there for the picking, I just fed Dr. Kauffman's info into the old Google machine and out came the following link:
http://drlauraletter.com/
...and what's there is WAY more entertaining than the original letter. Ok, maybe it's not a lot funnier, but it's far more extensive and thus entertaining over a longer period of bathroom visits, sleepless nights, or long flights. it is at least way more interesting that the typical Snopes entry (although I give the Snopesters their due deference!)
I've noticed a trend when it comes to this kind of stuff: the more official the attribution looks, the less likely it is to be legit. (Hey, don't take that the wrong way - I'm certainly not questioning the infallible word of the Lord here, just the attribution of the rest of the letter) Similarly, when you get an email that says "this is real, I checked it out on snopes," it is almost guaranteed to be NOT real, and really busted on Snopes. (apparently the boneheads who believe and pass on some of this unfunny crap and claim to have verified it don't know how to read a Snopes entry)
I don't know about you, but that tickles the living shit out of me! Even when these ridiculous things clog our boxes and include a challenge to "check it out for yourself" AND even when they provide a place to check it out, people still don't bother to apply any thought or effort of their own and pass them along as though they believe and/or agree with them.
To be clear, this particular letter is NOT what I'm talking about. I'm passing it along here because it's funny even if we never learn who originally created it, and even if Dr. Laura never actually said the homophobic garbage it was in response to. And I think I've made it clear that I'm NOT passing it along to lend it legitimacy or in the hope of spreading some important message. And to be extra super duper clear, I'm (again) not questioning the quotes attributed to God...(don't need to in this case!) I only question the authenticity of the letter's author and some of the stuff Dr. Laura allegedly said to cause it. My rant had more to do with other, far more unbelievable but presumably serious emails that get passed around like an STD in a freshman dorm.
What will it ever take for us to think for ourselves?
Anyhoo, just thought I'd share.
Luth
Out
PS Can you tell I have a paper due?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding
God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share
that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to
defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that
Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination ... End of
debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some
other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves,
both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring
nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not
Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as
sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would
be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman
while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24.
The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take
offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I
know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is
my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I
smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the
Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I
morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do
it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating
shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than
homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees'
of abomination?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar
of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear
reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some
wiggle-room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed,
including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly
forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a
dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear
gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by
planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by
wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester
blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really
necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town
together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to
death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with
their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and
thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you
can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is
eternal and unchanging.
Your adoring fan,
James M. Kauffman, Ed.D. Professor Emeritus, Dept. Of
Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education University of Virginia
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My former boss sent it to me 'cuz she knew I'd think it was funny even if neither of us cared about its authenticity and didn't plan to pass it on to anyone else. She was right. I got a good laugh out of it and didn't even consider checking it out further.
A lot of times, when I get something like this emailed to me, it's not funny, and it's been forwarded by about a zillion people. I usually run it through Snopes.com before I make anything more out of it, but in this case, since the citation info is right there for the picking, I just fed Dr. Kauffman's info into the old Google machine and out came the following link:
http://drlauraletter.com/
...and what's there is WAY more entertaining than the original letter. Ok, maybe it's not a lot funnier, but it's far more extensive and thus entertaining over a longer period of bathroom visits, sleepless nights, or long flights. it is at least way more interesting that the typical Snopes entry (although I give the Snopesters their due deference!)
I've noticed a trend when it comes to this kind of stuff: the more official the attribution looks, the less likely it is to be legit. (Hey, don't take that the wrong way - I'm certainly not questioning the infallible word of the Lord here, just the attribution of the rest of the letter) Similarly, when you get an email that says "this is real, I checked it out on snopes," it is almost guaranteed to be NOT real, and really busted on Snopes. (apparently the boneheads who believe and pass on some of this unfunny crap and claim to have verified it don't know how to read a Snopes entry)
I don't know about you, but that tickles the living shit out of me! Even when these ridiculous things clog our boxes and include a challenge to "check it out for yourself" AND even when they provide a place to check it out, people still don't bother to apply any thought or effort of their own and pass them along as though they believe and/or agree with them.
To be clear, this particular letter is NOT what I'm talking about. I'm passing it along here because it's funny even if we never learn who originally created it, and even if Dr. Laura never actually said the homophobic garbage it was in response to. And I think I've made it clear that I'm NOT passing it along to lend it legitimacy or in the hope of spreading some important message. And to be extra super duper clear, I'm (again) not questioning the quotes attributed to God...(don't need to in this case!) I only question the authenticity of the letter's author and some of the stuff Dr. Laura allegedly said to cause it. My rant had more to do with other, far more unbelievable but presumably serious emails that get passed around like an STD in a freshman dorm.
What will it ever take for us to think for ourselves?
Anyhoo, just thought I'd share.
Luth
Out
PS Can you tell I have a paper due?
Friday, August 20, 2010
'splain this to me, Lucy
OK, so the right end of the spectrum is made up (mostly) of people who claim to be:
-more patriotic
-more religious
-more likely to want less government
...and yet these are the folks who now want the government to stop the building of a church at ground zero. WTF?!
That's the problem with religion - everyone's an atheist when it comes to every religion but theirs.
It's also the problem of our dangerously short memories. These same folks, who somehow associate an entire religion with the 15 lunatics who flew planes into those towers, tend to forget that people in this century, calling themselves good Christians, claiming to act for God, killed a lot of people too. Even the Crusades lasted in some fashion into this century on this and neighboring continents. On other continents, dictators regularly try to cleanse their nations of God's "mistakes" or "impurities." It ain't just Muslims.
By this logic, we should ban the building of ALL churches in family neighborhoods... maybe restrict them to areas where strip clubs are located so everyone knows exactly what dangers they face when they venture into that neighborhood.
And speaking of stupid shit, what's with opinion polls on matters that aren't subject to opinion like whether or not Lebron will stay in Cleveland, or whether or not the president is a Muslim. These things aren't matters of opinion and it doesn't matter what uninformed (or even informed) opinions people have. 99.9% of people polled can say I'm a dumbass but it has no effect whatsoever on the fact that I'm a friggin genius!
I guess there's some entertainment value in it... so, how many of you out there believe Glen Beck is a Christian and his show is God's work?
Luth
Out
-more patriotic
-more religious
-more likely to want less government
...and yet these are the folks who now want the government to stop the building of a church at ground zero. WTF?!
That's the problem with religion - everyone's an atheist when it comes to every religion but theirs.
It's also the problem of our dangerously short memories. These same folks, who somehow associate an entire religion with the 15 lunatics who flew planes into those towers, tend to forget that people in this century, calling themselves good Christians, claiming to act for God, killed a lot of people too. Even the Crusades lasted in some fashion into this century on this and neighboring continents. On other continents, dictators regularly try to cleanse their nations of God's "mistakes" or "impurities." It ain't just Muslims.
By this logic, we should ban the building of ALL churches in family neighborhoods... maybe restrict them to areas where strip clubs are located so everyone knows exactly what dangers they face when they venture into that neighborhood.
And speaking of stupid shit, what's with opinion polls on matters that aren't subject to opinion like whether or not Lebron will stay in Cleveland, or whether or not the president is a Muslim. These things aren't matters of opinion and it doesn't matter what uninformed (or even informed) opinions people have. 99.9% of people polled can say I'm a dumbass but it has no effect whatsoever on the fact that I'm a friggin genius!
I guess there's some entertainment value in it... so, how many of you out there believe Glen Beck is a Christian and his show is God's work?
Luth
Out
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Drill Baby Drill
What could possibly go wrong? How could a plan that expedites untested technology on the deepest well ever in order to speed up production have any flaws? Surely BP was completely prepared for any contingencies and thought everything through... otherwise they'd never be able to get this spill under control in only 6 months.
No, really, why should anyone be concerned with gulf coast mom and pop shrimpers, fishermen, tourist-trade folk or anyone else down there who just walks away from a multi-generational family business just because of a little oil and a few tar balls? They were just waiting for an excuse to get unemployment. They're just lazy socialists. We can make fun of them now for being dumb enough to think the government can or should save them. Let's face it, they don't contribute to national campaigns anyway. And we can always find some other beach at which to vacation... who needs the Gulf of Mexico? Or the southern part of the east coast?
Seriously, what could go wrong with a plan to burn up every last drop of fossil fuel, watch the world come to a screeching halt, and THEN start thinking about alternative fuel sources? If we came up with something better than that, then it wouldn't work to say such genius things like "the Democrats only want you to have power when the sun shines or the wind blows... their energy plan is for you to drive a smaller car."
Besides, who would ever want cheap, clean energy that doesn't melt glaciers or destroy mountain tops or drop acid rain? How else would we fade the paint on our cars and houses without acid rain?! There's simply no reason to question the sound thinking and firm logic behind Drill Baby Drill!
I'll ask it one more time, Treehuggers, why do you hate America?!
Luth,
Out
Thursday, May 06, 2010
Still Think Sexual Repression Is a Family Value?
If you're like me, and let's face, not many are... wait, where was I? Oh yeah, if you're like me, you too probably think "that dude spends more time in the closet than that snowman sweater my grandma sent me for Christmas in 1983" any time you hear some righteous Righty extolling the evils of homosexuality. I honestly can't believe anyone even says anti-gay shit in public anymore. It's practically the first alert that they'll soon be caught in or coming out of the closet. Funny thing is, if they weren't such hypocrites, no one would care these days. Most of us are beginning to understand that folks are the way they are. Those who believe in God understand we don't understand how He or She makes us. Those who don't believe know that arbitrarily created and randomly enforced "morals" don't count for much anyway.
So when the world learned this George Alan Rekers guy, who advised W, worked with James Dobson, and built an empire of anti-gay BS, hired a gay prostitute to accompany him on a European vacation, it wasn't all that surprising. What's surprising is how many people don't get the connection between the hypocrisy of his behavior and the religious guilt and repression that almost inevitably leads to it. Heard the one about the Catholic priest and the altar boy? Yeah, that's exactly what I'm talking about.
When your mission is to guilt people out of natural, instinctive behavior, you're bound to end up with some unwanted side effects like fanning the flames of AIDS in third world countries because condoms are evil ( ahem Mother Theresa ahem) or steering pedophiles into the calling because "normal" men aren't really interested and women aren't allowed.
Look, Reker's Freddy Mercury moustache means only that he likes moustaches. It was his vehement and vociferous anti-gay crap that tells us all he didn't hire his boy toy to carry his luggage. And I don't think he was trying to save the young man either... at least not in any Christian way. As funny as it is to make jokes about this guy, it's scary that he has in fact shaped American legislation. He's advised the Department of Health and Human Services, was instrumental in Florida's gay adoption ban and the Family Research Council that he co-founded with James Dobson serves as an initiation for any Republican who wants to run for national office. I really don't care if he likes boys, what scares me is that he helps make laws that tell others they shouldn't. Thank goodness the story gets funnier or I'd begin to think we were in an Orwell novel.
Even funnier: speaking of values, a recent report indicates Blue states seem to be better at family values than Red ones. Who'd a thunk? Don't believe it? I wouldn't either, so don't take my word for it. An article in National Journal Magazine notes the following strange stats:
Six of the seven states with the lowest divorce rates in 2007, and all seven with the lowest teen birthrates in 2006, voted blue in both elections. Six of the seven states with the highest divorce rates in 2007, and five of the seven with the highest teen birthrates, voted red.
What's even funnier still is how a couple of professors (and, granted, one is from the insanely liberal George Washington University and the other is from the even more insanely liberal University of Missouri's flamboyant Kansas City campus) explain the phenomena. I'll have to use their quote because it's precious, but after this, you'll have to read the rest of the article on your own cuz I'm going back to blabbing about it...
In red America, families form adults; in blue America, adults form families.
Or at least that's how it used to be. In other words, Blue folks wait until they are adults to have kids and form families, but Red folks, who cling to 50's morals and birth control technology, have babies while they're still kids and then the family responsibilities turn them into adults. Only problem is, modern society no longer forces them to stay married so instead of learning how to be adults by stepping up to the responsibilities of their unprotected fornicating, they walk away. (for further anecdotal evidence, see "Alaska" or "Palin")
Hey, don't be mad at me, these are social scientists observing the real world and saying this stuff, not me.
I actually have a number of problems with this aside from the obvious things like: a) no state, city, street, or even one-bedroom apartment is completely red or blue, b) even red folks have learned to ignore ridiculous rules about who should use birth control, c) even blue households include single moms and fatherless kids, 4) this crazy new idea of allowing women in the workplace now allows them the option of escaping dangerous or worthless husbands more than they could in the 50's (and that's a good thing) in both red and blue households, etc. and so on.
But the real problem I have with it is that someone, somewhere, will miss the point entirely and assume it means that we should look to Democrats for values.
What's wrong with that, you ask? After all, they apparently follow the "values" that Republicans pretend to, right? I'll tell you what's wrong with it: The same thing that's wrong with anyone telling me how to run my house. Values are individual, cultural, religious, historical, social, physical, you name it. What's important to you may never be important to me (BMWs for instance). What's important to me may never be important to a desert nomad who has never heard a White Stripes song. So don't tell me what I should believe, or how I should raise my kids, or how to have sex, or whether I should ever get married...(that actually sounds pretty conservative, don't it?)... whether you're a Democrat, a Republican, or Ghandi or Elvis. It's not up to you. And it sure as hell shouldn't be up to a political party. They're second only to organized religions when it comes to mass damage through values imposition. (The HUAC, The Inquisition...)
When it comes to the values of a community, it's best to keep it simple - do the most good and the least harm. Or just leave people alone. Seriously, what difference does it make in your life if your neighbor is a lesbian... or your pastor ran off to Europe with a gay prostitute... unless you're jealous!
Luth
Out
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Healthcare Reform Bill Top Ten list
Here it is, just in time for tomorrow's vote on healthcare reform, the top ten reasons why this bill, weak as it is by now, needs to pass:
1. SOCIALIZED MEDICINE!!
1. SOCIALIZED MEDICINE!!
AAaaagghhh! - Here's a tip: we already have it. We already pay for people who don't have healthcare to go to an emergency room for sniffles or care that could be provided much more effectively and less expensively in a clinic that would gladly see them if they had insurance. We already pay TOO much for that and there's no stopping it under our current "system." Ever complain about a $50 Tylenol or a $50 bandage from the ER? Guess why that is? Ever wonder why the only insurance available for a self-employed head of a healthy household costs around $500 a month JUST for catastrophic limits? (that's right, you still pay cash for every doctor visit, prescription, etc. but for the privilege of paying $500 a month, you can rest assured that at least you won't be bankrupted by a sudden illness or accident.) Why do you think that is? It's because that insurance company has "socialized" their profit by having YOUR healthy family subsidize a less healthy family. So tell me why doing that without lining the insurance company's CEOs' pockets would be such a bad thing?!
1a. - Tell me one more time why the world's richest, most free, most productive, highest GDP country is the ONLY one that doesn't provide its people with nationalized health insurance? Tell me one more time why we shouldn't be embarrassed about that rather than ignorantly insistent that what we have is better?
1b. - The DoD's (military's) Tri-Care system and the DVA's Veterans Health Administration are BOTH "socialized" healthcare systems. They are also consistently ranked among the top systems in the country for customer satisfaction, quality of care, and thriftiness. Sure, they have their occasional problems: Tri-Care is having some trouble providing consistent coverage for the "on again/off again" reservists and guardsmen who are called to active duty and then returned to their civilian lives too frequently these days, and VHA occasionally has some trouble with one or two of its 250,000 employees, but both socialized systems are far more effective than the lack of a system the rest of us have.
2. Abortion
1a. - Tell me one more time why the world's richest, most free, most productive, highest GDP country is the ONLY one that doesn't provide its people with nationalized health insurance? Tell me one more time why we shouldn't be embarrassed about that rather than ignorantly insistent that what we have is better?
1b. - The DoD's (military's) Tri-Care system and the DVA's Veterans Health Administration are BOTH "socialized" healthcare systems. They are also consistently ranked among the top systems in the country for customer satisfaction, quality of care, and thriftiness. Sure, they have their occasional problems: Tri-Care is having some trouble providing consistent coverage for the "on again/off again" reservists and guardsmen who are called to active duty and then returned to their civilian lives too frequently these days, and VHA occasionally has some trouble with one or two of its 250,000 employees, but both socialized systems are far more effective than the lack of a system the rest of us have.
2. Abortion
(You're right, you're right... it looks like a silly topic to include on this list... like there's no relevance... or like any argument surrounding it is as ridiculous as some rumor you heard but ignored like "only black jazz musicians smoke marijuana" OR "Bill Gates will mail you a personal check for $400 if you complete this survey." I know, I know, but still) When it comes to the abortion argument, we need to stop the hypocrisy. Stop PRETENDING human life is sacred while we gladly support practices that end it quickly and expensively, or put profit way ahead of it - like our current model of health insurance! Don't believe me? Here are some examples: support for the death penalty or the Global War on Terrorism, opposition to helmet and seatbelt and gun laws, opposition to taxing alcohol and tobacco and junkfood, opposition to regulating giant food additive makers, oil companies and other environment destroyers. There's support for the freedom to build your house in a forest that burns regularly or on a flood plain... or any part of some other deadly natural cycle, but then the cries for help and bailouts when that natural cycle threatens your overpriced home and pets - you want us to subsidize THAT when it was your own stupid decision that put your own "sacred life" in harm's way?!
The abortion argument has about as much relevance to insurance reform as WMD had to the invasion of Iraq.
I'll grant you one little shred of connection - public money MIGHT save a mom's life by terminating her tubal pregnancy so that she can live and raise her BORN children, BUT even if we personally oppose saving that mom's life, don't we have an obligation to promote the greater good rather than childishly cling to this one little personal peeve? (I can't believe we're still talking about this.)
3. Logic
I'll grant you one little shred of connection - public money MIGHT save a mom's life by terminating her tubal pregnancy so that she can live and raise her BORN children, BUT even if we personally oppose saving that mom's life, don't we have an obligation to promote the greater good rather than childishly cling to this one little personal peeve? (I can't believe we're still talking about this.)
3. Logic
The only logical reason to support the current system is if you personally profit from it. Unless your name is among lists that include George Halvorson, Jeff Kindler, or Cleve Killingsworth, you really don't have any evidence-based reason to oppose public healthcare. Sure you can believe what Glenn Beck tells you about what it will cost, or that it's some evil liberal conspiracy, but that's all political puffery... emotional appeal... and everyone knows it. You can cite the people who complain about the system in Canada or the UK or Switzerland, but be sure to ask them if they'd trade that system while you're at it, cuz they generally offer up a quick, "no f-ing way." It's human nature to complain and there will always be anecdotal "evidence" that all systems involving humans have flaws, but those public health systems have legions of loyal supporters and they provide economic and family stability that our "system" actually seems to be destroying.
4. Portability
4. Portability
Tired of that dead end job, but too tied up in its insurance plan to get a new one? Thinking about starting up a small business of your own to cure cancer in your garage but know you can't afford the coverage for your kid's wheelchair batteries? Want to give up that gig at Wal-mart in order to start a non-profit that feeds and shelters homeless nuns, war heroes, and people who lost their jobs for blowing the whistle on their pedophile bosses? How great would that option be... if only you weren't beholden to your current employer's insurance plan. Sorry, your small business venture (once thought to be sacred in America) will have to take a back seat to giant insurance's profits, because that's apparently what we collectively believe in these days.
5. Profit
5. Profit
Yeah, speaking of that, I can't emphasize enough that there's nothing inherently evil about making a profit. I'm an American. Hell, I'm one who has signed on the line to die for my country. I believe in capitalism wholeheartedly. But I also understand that life is slightly more complex than sound bites generally allow for and thus I grasp the concept that sometimes profit and product are mutually exclusive. For instance, many aspects of health maintenance or "wellness" require long-term investments... to make it concrete let's say investments in electronic health records for example (like VHA developed and uses), or wellness exams that make use of these long-term records in order to increase a patients quality of life now and until they die. The typical insurance company only has that patient for 3-5 years, until the patient moves on to another employer-paid insurance plan. It's simply bad business for a for-profit healthcare system under our current model to invest in any kind of long term plan. it's far more profitable for them to push high-profit "treatments" or diagnostics for which they get paid now. (thus far I've picked primarily on health insurance companies, but here's where the Big Pharm gets in the game too) The bottom line is simple: AS LONG AS SOME COMPANY'S PROFIT IS THE PRIME MOVER IN THE HEALTHCARE MATRIX, YOUR HEALTH AND WELLNESS IS NOT. Perhaps healthcare is one of those things, like the military, that's best left to the non-profit realm. (Adam Smith seemed to think so)
6. The Current Model
6. The Current Model
Under our current model, an estimated 30-70 million American households are one serious illness or accident away from bankruptcy. (while the numbers are similar, we're not talking about "the uninsured" here - we're talking about people with good jobs and insurance right now) That means 30-70 million American households just one hospital stay away from shutting down a mom and pop business, or joining the welfare role, or withdrawing everything they currently buy from the national economy. Still think "socialized medicine" is a bigger threat to the American way of life? Consider the trend since you first learned how your parents' coverage worked compared to how your coverage works today. Is your policy more or less comprehensive than it used to be? Do you pay more or less of a percentage of your monthly income for that coverage. Do you pay more or less/higher or lower co-pays these days? Is that really the direction you want to keep going? If the trend continues, soon only college-aged non-smokers, non-drinkers who can prove they exercise three times per week will be able to get a catastrophic protection policy for thousands per month. The rest of us will have been deemed uninsurable for conditions like "over the age of 30" or "served in military" or "mined coal." When you speak of this current model that you so want to protect, is THAT what you're talking about? Cuz that's where it seems we're headed.
7. Socialism (not to be confused with #1 - Socialized Medicine)
7. Socialism (not to be confused with #1 - Socialized Medicine)
The founding of this nation, to include the formation of a representative democracy as our form of government, is a socialist idea. Pooling resources for the common good is hardly a bad or ineffective or un-American idea. The Cold War is over. There really aren't any communists any more to rail against or fear, and most of the "socialists" of the world provide their people with things America simply can't figure out how to provide. So why is socialism such a bad word? And why, again, shouldn't we be embarrassed that we can't do what so many other countries do? Why can't we do it better?! Giving up on our ability to do it better than any other country seems rather unpatriotic to me. I think if we could get past this meaningless and irrelevant political debate, we'd all agree that Americans should DEMAND that our government provide us BETTER public healthcare than lesser governments provide their people!!
8. Selfishness
8. Selfishness
I want better coverage than I have now. I want my decision, or my wife's decision to leave or stay at our current jobs to be based solely on the jobs, not the insurance coverage I can't get anywhere else. I want the decisions about my healthcare to be made by my healthcare providers, NOT insurance company policy. I want my kids to focus on college when they're in college, not the fact that they will have no coverage when they turn 22. I want struggling chemists (or my mechanic, or my favorite local musician...) to be able to get a tooth replaced and get back to the lab/shop/stage rather than worrying for weeks about how they'll pay the dentist. I want dentists to focus on replacing that tooth, not how or if they'll get paid. I want my entire medical team, from physical therapists, to social workers, to surgeons to be paid for their expertise, not some code created by an insurance company. I want my neighbor's kids' asthma medicine to be as well subsidized as Viagra or Nicorette. I want my mom to be able to visit an audiologist and compare the virtues and performance of a variety of hearing aids from a variety of manufacturers rather than having to visit the retail stores/sales staff of each manufacturer. She's not shopping for a TV, but that's how hearing aid shopping works these days! What other health related issue requires you to go the Best Buy route?! Is THAT the current model of which we're all so fond?!
9. Money
9. Money
Since the Reagan era, when record breaking deficit spending became the norm, we have paid more and more but expected less and less from our government. I can't live with that. Since there's no indication that we're ever going to pay less, then let's expect more. There are plenty of government managed models of successful, efficient healthcare out there, some in foreign countries with 40% income tax rates, but some right here in this country. Let's pick one, and run with it. 10 years from now, other countries will be lining up to see how they can do what we do. It will hurt a little at first, but soon we'll wonder how we ever managed to be without it. Not only that, but systems like VHA get better results and higher customer satisfaction at about 2/3 the cost of commercial systems. Why should we continue to throw that extra 33% away?
10. F the "party of No"
10. F the "party of No"
And I'm not just talking about Republicans here. I'm talking about anyone who votes no on issues from local school levies to national politics without offering up a better solution in place of what they're voting against. For the longest time I wasted my breath asking these folks for THEIR better ideas. A wise Republican actually pointed out to me that those kinds of people have no better ideas. They just vote no and believe they've done their part. I'm not foolish enough to believe that will ever change, nor should everyone have to have every solution to every problem in order to be justified in working to defeat an issue. But in this case, it's a little beyond granny voting down the school levy she can't afford on Social Security. The folks who vote on healthcare reform this week are paid public officials who have had since the early 90s to come up with a better plan. Their JOB is to solve this problem and they've had 20 years to come up with something more than just a NO vote. At this point, let's not let perfection be mud on the wheels of progress. Let's not let their FAILURE for 20 years prevent even a small step at a move toward a solution. Let's start with "good enough" and then work to make it better. And in the next election, let's make it better by getting rid of anyone who thinks that a NO vote is sufficient performance for the pay and the lifelong healthcare benefits we provide for them.
Luth
Out
Monday, January 25, 2010
Activist judges complete W's legacy
It took me a while to figure out that W was actually a genius who was boldly, blatantly, and with no regard for individual Americans, selling out individual Americans to the corporate interests that got him elected and promised to keep him rich long after his presidency.
I never wanted to believe that anyone would do that... not even W, but over the course of two terms, he convinced me. What other goals could he possibly have had? He never mentioned any others. He's certainly got little to show for any other efforts. He didn't address the runaway irresponsibility piling up on Wall Street. He blew the savings accounts on wars for... for... what was it again? Oh nevermind. And then he promised us his legacy.
And now the Supreme Court has delivered that legacy. They have iced the corporate cake by interpreting the 1st amendment to apply to corporations as though they truly were individuals (but without the individual responsibility, of course) AND by equating CASH with SPEECH.
So, while the old quaint saying, "one man, one vote" still holds true in this great nation, if that man is a CEO, he can buy up all the air time in every small market during every election for the next 10 years to ensure that no one who opposes his candidate can run a TV ad in that market. But at least we all still get our one vote!
...and he can do it by spending his shareholder's money without their consent, permission or input.
...he can even do it by spending his employees' salaries without their consent, permission or input.
...and we can all just lie there and take it, losing our jobs, then our homes, while the CEO and politician BOTH pass the cost of it all right back down to us. Yep, that's the best part. We get to pay for it, we just don't get choose the message.
OK, so union presidents and the CE or CFOs of PACS can do the same thing. Is THAT supposed to make an individual American voter feel better?
With this interpretation, it will become even harder to tell where the CEO ends and the politician he or she owns begins. It's already difficult to tell a lobbyist from a legislator, but those middlemen can be eliminated now. The CEO can just hand the $$ right on over. Of course, that's only fair since for the last 15 years, the politicians have handed everything right on over to the CEOs.
The lack of an individual conscience that has allowed corporate greed to run DC since the Reagan administration (Yes, including the Clinton years) is directly responsible for our current economic crisis. Those same crybabies who complained about Clinton's activist judges used to talk a lot about Adam Smith too. They talked about leaving the market alone.
They're quiet about Smith and the activist judges now because the activist judges gave them what they wanted.
And so did Adam Smith. When you read him a little more thoroughly/a little less selectively, you discover that not only would Smith have advocated public healthcare in the world's richest nation (have I mentioned that completely irrelevant to this argument idea here before?), but also that the corporate greed of the unchecked "invisible hand" would first destroy all competing markets, and then, finally, destroy itself. (Unless, of course, we prop them up with cash WE will never see again... and by WE I mean anyone who doesn't have a half million or more to invest tomorrow.)
As long as you're on top of the game when it happens, it's a great short term, get-rich-quick plan....just like that of just about every CEO in the last 20 years. Now the rest of us have to clean up the messes they've left behind and pay all the tabs they ran up while they were making sure they got theirs.
And thanks to the Supreme Court decision, they'll be buying up the next round of politicians, running up that tab again, to make sure that broken wheel just keeps on spinnin! Unless, just maybe, we get tired of the reality TV they pay for, and find some way to make a decision on our own.
I ain't holdin my breath.
Luth
Out
I never wanted to believe that anyone would do that... not even W, but over the course of two terms, he convinced me. What other goals could he possibly have had? He never mentioned any others. He's certainly got little to show for any other efforts. He didn't address the runaway irresponsibility piling up on Wall Street. He blew the savings accounts on wars for... for... what was it again? Oh nevermind. And then he promised us his legacy.
And now the Supreme Court has delivered that legacy. They have iced the corporate cake by interpreting the 1st amendment to apply to corporations as though they truly were individuals (but without the individual responsibility, of course) AND by equating CASH with SPEECH.
So, while the old quaint saying, "one man, one vote" still holds true in this great nation, if that man is a CEO, he can buy up all the air time in every small market during every election for the next 10 years to ensure that no one who opposes his candidate can run a TV ad in that market. But at least we all still get our one vote!
...and he can do it by spending his shareholder's money without their consent, permission or input.
...he can even do it by spending his employees' salaries without their consent, permission or input.
...and we can all just lie there and take it, losing our jobs, then our homes, while the CEO and politician BOTH pass the cost of it all right back down to us. Yep, that's the best part. We get to pay for it, we just don't get choose the message.
OK, so union presidents and the CE or CFOs of PACS can do the same thing. Is THAT supposed to make an individual American voter feel better?
With this interpretation, it will become even harder to tell where the CEO ends and the politician he or she owns begins. It's already difficult to tell a lobbyist from a legislator, but those middlemen can be eliminated now. The CEO can just hand the $$ right on over. Of course, that's only fair since for the last 15 years, the politicians have handed everything right on over to the CEOs.
The lack of an individual conscience that has allowed corporate greed to run DC since the Reagan administration (Yes, including the Clinton years) is directly responsible for our current economic crisis. Those same crybabies who complained about Clinton's activist judges used to talk a lot about Adam Smith too. They talked about leaving the market alone.
They're quiet about Smith and the activist judges now because the activist judges gave them what they wanted.
And so did Adam Smith. When you read him a little more thoroughly/a little less selectively, you discover that not only would Smith have advocated public healthcare in the world's richest nation (have I mentioned that completely irrelevant to this argument idea here before?), but also that the corporate greed of the unchecked "invisible hand" would first destroy all competing markets, and then, finally, destroy itself. (Unless, of course, we prop them up with cash WE will never see again... and by WE I mean anyone who doesn't have a half million or more to invest tomorrow.)
As long as you're on top of the game when it happens, it's a great short term, get-rich-quick plan....just like that of just about every CEO in the last 20 years. Now the rest of us have to clean up the messes they've left behind and pay all the tabs they ran up while they were making sure they got theirs.
And thanks to the Supreme Court decision, they'll be buying up the next round of politicians, running up that tab again, to make sure that broken wheel just keeps on spinnin! Unless, just maybe, we get tired of the reality TV they pay for, and find some way to make a decision on our own.
I ain't holdin my breath.
Luth
Out
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Fox News to public: If anyone out there still takes us seriously, we'll show YOU!
Welcome back dear fans. It's been a while and though I did miss all three of you, it's Fox News that brought me back.
In case there was anyone out there who still took them seriously, they hired WHO?! You've got to be FKM! I get that networks hire folks with ratings in mind, but no real NEWS network would do that to the point of hiring someone completely unqualified to read news, would they? Oh wait, nevermind, it's Fox. Of course they would because they don't expect to be taken seriously.
I joked during the presidential election that I was more qualified to be a vice president than Fox's newest commentator, but geez ow! If you're here, reading this, then this time you know this 'blog alone is proof that I'm not joking when I say I think I've really got her beat in the qualifications department. You betcha.
Think about it:
-I spout off un- or ill-formed opinions with little basis in reality
-I used to be able to see Canada from my back porch
-I once edited a newspaper
-I'm professionally trained in communications
True, I'm no Joe Beercan. I'm happily married. My spouse has a degree and a better job than I do and no one in our family has supported a bridge to nowhere or been involved in domestic disputes. I was never in a beauty contest. I'm actually a veteran. In fact, I prefer thinking for myself... occasionally even before I speak!
Now, I should mention (not in the name of fairness, cuz let's face it, that has no business anywhere near this discussion) that Mrs. Palin and I do have some things in common. I've already mentioned the thinking for myself and the being able to see a foreign country from the back porch, but there 's more. I too once ran for a local public office. I too questioned why Americans should be sent to Iraq (though I wasn't referring only to an immediate family member at the time). I too believe in smaller government, although my version of it would mean gov't keeping its hands out of our wombs and weddings and coroporate sponsorship... and maybe out of marijuana enforcement! I too believe in evolution, no wait....
Look, I'm sure Mrs. Palin is a great gal and just like W, she's probably great to have a beer with, but if that's the qualification for high profile jobs these days, then I went to college with some great potential commentators and U.S. presidents even if some of them never finished. In fact many of the ones who were most fun to have a beer with didn't make it past Thanksgiving of our freshman year!
I also understand that both Fox and Palin have their loyal followers - MILLIONS on Twitter!! - but this really comes down to one of those things where you can't have it both ways. Either Fox News is serious about being a news channel, or they're not. If they were serious, they'd hire professional journalists rather than just ratings grabbers. Likewise, I think the Republicans need to decide if they're serious about a candidate to run against Obama. If they think like Fox, they can only be serious about giving Obama a second term!
Luth,
Out
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)